S74 Rulings in Alberta for 2021 in reference to the OIC

[ctd]

On 2021/March/04 the Provincial court said they do not have Jurisdiction to hear the S74 court cases.

It will be interesting to see how the cases that have to be heard turn out coming up. Especially since these three cases have been turned down.

Does anyone have any idea what else can be done?

Taken from the CANLII web site.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...&resultIndex=1

[28] I have no hesitation concluding that a provincial court judge does not have jurisdiction to hear the Firearms Owners’ s74 reference applications as filed. On March 1st, 2021 this Court handed down its judgment in Kurina v Canada (Attorney General) 2021 ABPC 74, which dealt with the identical issue presented by this case and involved three separate Firearms Owners who received the letter of July 20th from the Registrar of Firearms and who applied similarly to this Court for a s74 reference hearing. This Court issued written reasons explaining why its conclusion that the Provincial Court of Alberta does not have jurisdiction to hear a s74 reference in such circumstances. Those same reasons apply to the applications before this Court and lead this Court to the same conclusion, that is, that the Registrar of Firearms did not revoke the registration certificates of Mr. Hulit or Mr. McShane and therefore there is no jurisdiction for the Court to hold a s74 reference hearing.

[30] The essence of my decision to reject the applications of Mr. Hulit and Mr. McShane is set out in paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Kurina judgment which for ease of reference are quoted herein as follows:

Here is a link to the Kurina Judgement.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/do...&resultIndex=2


[58] The direct consequences of SOR/2020-96 was to extinguish the legal validity of certificates of registration issued previously for prescribed restricted firearms that are now prescribed as prohibited firearms. Effective May 1, 2020, there was in law no registration certificates available for such firearms described as restricted firearms. Such firearms were no longer restricted, so no restricted firearm registration certificates have any validity or could come into being. The nullification, revocation, or invalidation of the Applicants’ registration certificates came into effect on May 1, 2020 by operation of law: that effect was not dependant upon the Registrar of Firearms deciding at some point thereafter to revoke. There was nothing to “revoke”; the registration certificates had no legal validity effective May 1, 2020. This is made even more clear by the fact that SOR/2020-97, the Amnesty Regulation that was issued in conjunction with SOR/2020-96, complements SOR/2020-96, and the two Orders in Council, when read together, (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v Rex, 2002 SCC 42 at para 46) demonstrate clearly that the subject registration certificates of the Firearms Owners no longer have any legal validity. The amnesty provision comes into effect the moment the nullification of the registration certificate occurs by operation of law, that is, May 1, 2020. The Amnesty Regulation does not perpetuate the certificate of registration, rather it forgives the unlawfulness Noof the possession because no registration certificate exists for the subject firearms any longer, and protects against prosecution for a specific period provided certain circumstances exist. The legislative body, in this case the Governor in Council, is presumed to know that immediately upon the Regulation coming into effect that the registration certificates for all those previous restricted firearms now prescribed prohibited are no longer legally valid and that the holders of those firearms are in unlawful possession thereof, hence the amnesty provisions. There is no need for amnesty if the certificates of registration still have lawful validity after SOR/2020-96 comes into effect.

[59] The registration certificates that the Applicants assert were revoked by the Registrar of Firearms through the letter of July 20, 2020 ceased to exist on May 1, 2020 with the coming into force of the Regulation as described aforesaid. There was after that point nothing to revoke, indeed even if the Registrar purported to be revoking the subject certificates of registration pursuant to s71(a), that mistake would not change the fact that there was nothing of legal validity to revoke, there was nothing to take away as the registration certificates for the former restrictive firearms ceased to have any legal validity or existence other than as pieces of paper.

[Pioneer2]

The Feds want a judge in their pocket.

[ctd]

Originally Posted by Pioneer2

The Feds want a judge in their pocket.

It is interesting how the Feds worded the OIC and how they implemented it. I truly believe if there had not been so much talk of s74 filings prior to the OIC that they would have had a different approach. We may have had a excellent chance to win the fight.
I guess time will tell how this pans out.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by ctd

It is interesting how the Feds worded the OIC and how they implemented it. I truly believe if there had not been so much talk of s74 filings prior to the OIC that they would have had a different approach. We may have had a excellent chance to win the fight.
I guess time will tell how this pans out.

The only ones who have any chance of winning anything are those who actually do something. As opposed to sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are doing something.

[ctd]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

The only ones who have any chance of winning anything are those who actually do something. As opposed to sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are doing something.

Once again your assumptions are amazing. Your opinion that your the only one doing anything is comical.
Just because I do not believe the s74 will be successful at this time does not mean when the new legislation it won't be. Already said to much.
You originally said one didn't need a Lawyer to file the s74, how's that going for ya? Your right to file it was the easy part. Now to plead the case is the hard part.
Hope you have a awesome angle to plead and win your case.


If you filing a s74 is more important then lobbying the people bringing the change then so be it.
Once again I bow down to your superior process. Yet how many s74 challenges across the country have been successful on this matter?
All you won in court is the chance to plead your case.
Good luck hope you got some money to go all the way.

[Twisted Canuck]

You really should pay attention better. I posted multiple times I have retained legal representation. He did a fine job at my hearing, and our judge put off our next appearance until July because she indicated she wanted to read the MacDonald decision on the introduction of evidence.

I have a right to my day in court and choose to exercise it. You want to 'lobby', go right ahead with that.

[WildBillG]

To be quite honest going to court to fight gun laws is not getting us very far. I don't like to say it but a civil uprising is the only thing that can bring us promising change. I have said it before that ever since the FAC was implimented we have been giving up our fire arms rights. I'll change that to ever since our government wanted pistols registered or what ever they called it back when we were no longer allowed to just buy one. That was the begining of our demise. It is just now the goverment has put its agenda in high gear. Don't be fooled none of the parties or any of the provicial leaders want us armed. With out guns people are much easier to push around and far less willing to fight back against authority.

[Twisted Canuck]

I'm not sure if going to court is getting us very far or not. It is the first option for me, and many others. If we lose in court, it certainly doesn't mean we have any intentions of being compliant and surrendering firearms. It's just the first step.

I would argue, looking at how Bill C-21 specifically references changes to the Firearms Act in regards to Section 74 that the number of us who filed have already caused a stir with the Ministers of Justice, and Public Safety. The new section, if C-21 is passed, is that anyone filing for an S74 review would be compelled to surrender *ALL* their firearms to a Peace Officer within 30 days of filing, or have them permanently disabled. A highly punitive condition to exercising a right to a hearing. So I believe we got their attention, and we are a drain on their resources. Whether we actually win, who knows. It's just the first step. It's a long battle ahead. I would posit that it is better to do something, then nothing. Others have suggested it would have been better to do nothing, or something else, without indicating what something else is. I'd rather do something.

[ctd]

One of the main reasons why I did not file a s74 right off the bat is I am waiting until either time is almost up on the amnesty or the OIC court case is won or lost. This way maybe it will delay the process of the government. Be the biggest pain if all firearm owners directly affected filed a s74 at the last minute.

Now that there are more then a few s74 across the country my idea is kind of moot now.

One of the aspects I have been trying to figure out is how to swing a s74 into challenging the OIC and its validity in our current system. It seems that a Provincial Judge or two have said they do not have jurisdiction to hear a s74 because of the OIC.
But is there a way to have them refer you to a higher court if the OIC is challenged as part of your s74. That is one thing that my Lawyer and I have talked about, but he has not confirmed if it would work or not. In order to go this route one is looking at some big money to see this through.
The risk taken is that if the Judge rules in favor of the Feds that you could loose your Firearms with no further process. Which would suck

Challenging the validity of the Actual OIC may be the big ticket to winning this thing. after all the lying, misleading and bypassing Parliament to push the OIC through it there has to be a way to challenge the process it was implemented. (other then voting them out.) One also needs to look as personally seeing the PM and the SM for defamation of character of Legal Firearm owners.

I guess time will tell how this pans out.
My MLA says they are still challenging the OIC from their end.

[Twisted Canuck]

A provincial judge has no jurisdiction to hear anything related to the OIC, which is federal jurisdiction. Likewise, the S74 is strictly the purview of provincial courts. It precludes combining them or trying to have a hybrid hearing. One case in NFLD was tossed specifically because the applicant tried to argue the flaws in the OIC.

On a different note, the MacDonald ruling came out today, on the admission of evidence. A fairly lengthy and comprehensive written decision. Paragraph 30 pretty much sums it up, that it would be 'manifestly unjust' to dismiss the applicant without allowing them to admit evidence. A subtle rebuke to all the Judges who have done just that in dismissing all of the cases to date.

I will try and post particulars later, not in a place where I can do it. If you have access to Canlii as you seem to, you may want to have a look. It will have a bearing on other applicant's hearings I believe.